Dixie Cup on Altar?

[YinYangMom]

John Lilburne:

I do not have a problem with drinking water in Mass, canon 919 says abstain an hour before the Eucharist “with the exception of only water and medicene”.

But he is breaching the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) by placing the cup on the altar.

According to 2002 GIRM:
"306. Only what is required for the celebration of the Mass may be placed on the mensa of the altar: namely, from the beginning of the celebration until the proclamation of the Gospel, the Book of the Gospels; then from the Presentation of the Gifts until the purification of the vessels, the chalice with the paten, a ciborium if necessary, and, finally, the corporal, the purificator, the pall, and the Missal.
“In addition, microphones that may be needed to amplify the priest’s voice should be arranged discreetly.”
It talks about altar clothes, not having flowers on the altar, candles and a crucifix in the 304-308.

The Ambo (i.e. lecturn) does not have such specific instructions, but 2002 GIRM 309 does discuss the “dignity of the ambo” and that is should be blessed. The 2002 GIRM can be accessed at romanrite.com/girm.html

Well in true GIRM fashion, it also doesn’t prohibit a glass of water on the altar for medicinal reasons.

These specific instructions are for ‘usual’ situations, not for the ‘exceptions’. There may be, perhaps, some supplemental document between the bishops and the priests which expressly allow a glass of water on the altar for medicinal purposes. You and I don’t know that there isn’t, and I trust that the priest is following the guidance of his bishop.

 

[CatholicCid]

Also, make sure to get him a nice, clear glass for Christmas

 

[Sean_O_L]

Palmas85 wrote:
“I didn’t say it was a community meal, I said it was sad some people think it is.”

Ummmm… how can I say this - well, the following approximates what I wish to convey: **No! That is NOT what you said! **In fact you said (and I highlight):

And in retrospect, I agree

, after all, it just a community meal, nothing special and surely not something that would require any reverence or discomfort as it were?

Just a meal like any other . I cannot believe that there are those who actually think the Mass is nothing more than a community meal. Guess I’m just out of touch with the times, behind the curve so to speak.

THAT is precisely what you wrote, and apparently believe! And, THAT is what would be deserving of an anathema (if anathemas still exist - according to the Council of Trent)!
And as far as that goes, I can’t remember the last time I heard somebody call the Mass a sacrifice, usually it’s the meal or the banquet. Or is your church somewhat different? I hope so.

It appears that - just like your theology, your memory (or perusal of the archives of this forum) is deficient! If you were to do a search of the Catholic Answers Forums on the phrase “propitiary sacrifice” (including the quote marks) you would find there are seven “hits”. In fact, I will provide you with the search URL to save you the trouble: forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1443771

And if you were to do a search on ‘sacrifice and “council of trent”’ (being the word “sacrifice” and the phrase “council of trent” contained within the single quotes – but not including the single quotes) you would find 155 “hits”. Again, I have done the work for you; Cf. the URL forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1443793

And if you were to do a search of the forums on the phrase “true and proper sacrifice” , you would obtain 19 “hits” – Cf. forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1443804

So! In slang terms, palmas85 – “Don’t do me no snow job”!
And yes, I did not notice the % sign strategically placed behind the 0.1, mea culpa, mea culpa, so you can bash me all you want if it makes you feel good.
“Strategically placed behind the 0.1”? Now, I know that there ARE variations in the use of the English language as used by the English, American and Australian peoples – but, where on earth would you suggest that the qualifier “%” ought to be placed if not precisely after the stated number? Honestly, words (nearly) fail me!

And anyway, since I don’t think you have much to say about anathemas, or anything else for that matter,

Well, I have, in fact pointed out to you that the Council of Trent DID anathematise the very publicly expressed sentiments that you have conveyed regarding the normative liturgy of Mass – the Pauline Liturgy. I have also added quite a file to the specific thread on “Anathema” at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=89322

Furthermore, while I grant that you may not like what I have written (either in these Forums or at my web-site at jloughnan.tripod.com/index.htm - I must contradict you when you falsely claim that “I don’t think you have much to say about anathemas, or anything else for that matter,” – for I have had very much to say on numerous subjects!

 

[Sean_O_L]

palmas85 continued:

I’ll just leave it at that. By the way, without the % sign after 0.1, what is it?

Who cares? The question is irrelevant! It is just as relevant as asking: “What’s the cost of fish in China”!

Oh and one other question, were you with Petergee when he saw the Priest keel over from dehydration or exhaustion?

Again! “What has this got to do with the price of fish in China”? If you had any powers of observation you would see that petergee lives in californai, and I live in Victoria, Australia. To what arcane conclusion does that lead you?

Tough lot for your priests down under, huh?

“Huh”? Relevance?

Suggestion: I suggest that, while sarcasm does have a place at times in conversation – when coupled with a tendency to falsify the truth and to rely on ignorance and misinformation – one is dealing with a powder-keg just waiting to blow-up the users thereof. I further suggest, that when you get caught out with your “pants down” (so to speak) that you acknowledge the error or fault with an expression of sorrow. More often than not, you may be surprised by being forgiven and welcomed into the human race.

 

[palmas85]

If you had any powers of observation you would see that petergee lives in californai, and I live in Victoria, Australia. To what arcane conclusion does that lead you?

Hurtful Sean very uncharitable and mean spirited to boot. BOO HOO.
Well lets get right down to the Khyber Rifles old bean, three posts from Petergee
Join Date: July 24, 2005
Posts: 257
Default Re: What’s the weather like in your area?
41 degress (Celsius) in Sydney yesterday. I think that’s about 105 Fahrenheit.
Reply With Quote

:

Petergee:

This is the practice, I think, everywhere else in the English-speaking world except the US.

I haven’t seen anyone genuflect to or kiss the ring of an Australian bishop for at least 30 years. I guess we are laid-back in Australasia. Some take it too far though. Cardinal Pell is an occasional guest on a radio program here and the presenter and other speakers usually address him as “George”. I presume Cd Pell doesn’t mind.

I’ve lived in Aus all my life and I’ve never heard of this so-called “Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations”. I doubt very much that it’s “a Muslim council”. Every Muslim I have ever heard speak about the issue is strongly in favour of Christians publicly celebrating Christian festivals, and wouldn’t dream of asking them to stop. You’ll probably find that this so-called “forum” contains few if any Muslims, and is probably merely the mouthpiece of a tiny handful of Anglo militant atheists who still haven’t matured out of an infantile reflex hatred of Christianity arising from their childhood when their parents made them get out of bed go to church. They’re using the excuse of “multiculturalism” to disguise their infantile attention-seeking.
Reply With Quote

If he lives in California, he’s lying in these posts. I don’t think he’s a liar.

In a private message in response to a closed thread, he said he had seen a priest keel over from dehydration during a Mass. Since he has lived in Australia his whole life, and you live there also, I thought you guys might know one another, thats all.

As far as me being anathema, well…
Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.

Above From the Catholic encyclopedia

So I truly doubt that you are in a position to anathemitize me

A Percentage can be expressed as a Fraction and a Decimal
Example: 1/2 is the same as 0.5 is the same as 50%
Example: 10% can be expressed as 10/100 or 1/10 or 0.1

The number to the left of the decimal point is a whole number.
The first digit on the right means tenths (1/10)
As we move further right, every number place gets 10 times smaller (one tenth as big)
As we move left, every number place gets 10 times bigger .

Fourth grade math book, my nephews.

While you do write a lot you don’t really say much of any consequence. I’ve been to your web site.

I observe and question, but I don’t hate. Why do you? Is that what took you away from the Church in the first place, hatred, or did you just think you were superior and knew better than the rest of us. You see Sean old man, I never followed a group like the SSPX, even when they were the only ones offering the Traditional Mass. . I stayed faithful to the Church and to the Holy Father, even in the 70’s and 80’s :bigyikes: when all manner of extreme experimentation went on virtually unchallenged.

I’ve earned the right to question, because I’ve seen and experienced what happens when you don’t.

Cheers or as my friends in Nariddy, New South Wales say, Viva Sean

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I still maintain that .1 is 10%. When I multiply 1.2 billion by .1 on my calculator, I get 120 million. But maybe I need an Australian calculator?

I don’t have time to argue. I believe a dingo is trying to steal my baby. :bigyikes:

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

To quote the Jungle Book vultures: “Now don’t star’ tha’ again!” Simply look back up the thread (which happens to not be this one), look at what the controversial percentage post actually said, and let it drop. There’s no need to drag it all over the forums.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orionthehunter:

I will tell you that someplace there is a provision for exceptions to accommodate legitimate health issues or there is a general understanding that accommodations are excepted/accepted when necessary. For instance, I’ve witnessed a Mass by a Priest in a wheelchair. Rather than the Readings being read from the Ambo as required in the GIRM, a server brought the Lectionary over to the Priest as it was physically impossible for him to access the Ambo. I think that considering there were three choices in this situation (No Mass, the Gospel read by an altar boy or non-trained person from the Congregation, or the Lectionary brought to the Priest), the interests of the Church and the faithful was served by the choice made. I think if a Priest who fully understands the magnitude of having a non-approved vessel on the altar such that if he deems in necessary because of his situation and to protect the dignity of the Mass, the rest of us need to be supportive and not be excessively diligant regarding the GIRM.

A priest needs an indult to celebrate Mass seated. So the provision exists, but it is not something one may avail oneself of without going through the proper channels.

Can. 930 §1. If an infirm or elderly priest is unable to stand, he can celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice while seated, but not before the people except with the permission of the local ordinary; the liturgical laws are to be observed.

 

[Brendan]

The priest probably had a sore\scratchy throat, cut him some slack.

AltarMan:

Ahhh, so you understand that “altar” is Latin for “table”, good for you.
…

FYI,* altare* does NOT mean ‘table’. A ‘table’ in Latin is a Mensa

The root for altare is ‘Adoere’ ; to burn\where things are burned.

 

[palmas85]

Dr. Bombay:

I still maintain that .1 is 10%. When I multiply 1.2 billion by .1 on my calculator, I get 120 million. But maybe I need an Australian calculator?

I don’t have time to argue. I believe a dingo is trying to steal my baby. :bigyikes:

I think what Sean is trying to say is that because they put a % sign behind the .1 it somehow magically changes the meaning from 10% to 1/10 of 1% or maybe 1%. I

 

[GoLatin]

I have two comments to make on this subject.

1. When I was an Anglican, I was an altar server(yes, I know that their “Masses” are invalid!). One Wednesday evening, I served for an elderly “priest”. The Anglican “sign of peace” is before the offertory, so during that he directed me to go and get him a glass of water, so that if his voice started to go he could have a drink.
2. There is this local Roman Catholic Priest, a Pastor of a Parish, who has a cast on his foot. Something to do with iinfected calluses that take a long time to heal, I think. Anyway, he can walk and stand in this cast(foot bones are probably not broken), but when standing it is a little hard to keep his balance, so Father celebrates Mass sitting down in back of the Altar. He gets up and walks to the appropriate place if he does the readings, but he gives the Sermon sitting behind the Altar, and he stands in front of the altar to distribute Holy Communion. I don’t know if he actually has an Indult to celebrate Mass sitting down. He is 58 years old.

 

[Sean_O_L]

re: palmas85 and Dr. Bombay.

First of all - the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge a point:
a) In preparing my last reply to palmas85 I accessed palmas85’s profile and saw HIS domicile as being in California, and wrongly California to Petergee…

b) Petergee’s profile does not indicate his place of domicile.

c) Up to the time of the first reply to palmas85 I had not read posts of either palmas85 or Petergee.

Therefore, I apologize for misrepresenting Petergee to living in the USA and not in Australia.

Now! let me see if I can address the matter “from the hip-pocket.”

I have 2 Million dollars to lend (a fiction, of course!).

a) I lend $1,000,000 to palmas85 conditional to the loan being secured by way of mortgage over suitable security, at the flat rate of 10% per annum, the interest being paid at the end of each year over a term of 10 years, and the principal to be repaid at the end of the 10th year.

This means that palmas85 agrees to pay as follows:

$1,000,000 x 10/100 = $100,000 per annum x 10 years = $1,000,000 interest over the 10 years.

b) I lend $1,000,000 to Petergee conditional to the loan being secured by way of mortgage over suitable security, at the flat rate of 0.1% per annum, the interest being paid at the end of each year over a term of 10 years, and the principal to be repaid at the end of the 10th year.

This means that Petergee agrees to pay as follows:

$1,000,000 x 0.1/100 = $1,000 per annum x 10 years = $10,000 interest over the 10 years.

Is palmas85 going to pay the same amount as Petergee?

In the same way, Petergee stated **clearly **that the possible number of traditional Catholics might possibly be 0.1% of 1.2 billion Catholics (that is) = 1,200,000.

The maths are 1,200,000,000 x 0.1/100 = 1,200,000

I repeat palmas85 (inadvertantly) misinterpreted 0.1 as being the SAME as 0.1% and claimed that Petergee ought have stated 10%

And there is nothing magical about the above at all - I am sure that even palmas85’s nephew would agree…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Sean O L:

re: palmas85 and Dr. Bombay.

First of all - the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge a point:
a) In preparing my last reply to palmas85 I accessed palmas85’s profile and saw HIS domicile as being in California, and wrongly California to Petergee…

b) Petergee’s profile does not indicate his place of domicile.

c) Up to the time of the first reply to palmas85 I had not read posts of either palmas85 or Petergee.

Therefore, I apologize for misrepresenting Petergee to living in the USA and not in Australia.

Now! let me see if I can address the matter “from the hip-pocket.”

I have 2 Million dollars to lend (a fiction, of course!).

a) I lend $1,000,000 to palmas85 conditional to the loan being secured by way of mortgage over suitable security, at the flat rate of 10% per annum, the interest being paid at the end of each year over a term of 10 years, and the principal to be repaid at the end of the 10th year.

This means that palmas85 agrees to pay as follows:

$1,000,000 x 10/100 = $100,000 per annum x 10 years = $1,000,000 interest over the 10 years.

b) I lend $1,000,000 to Petergee conditional to the loan being secured by way of mortgage over suitable security, at the flat rate of 0.1% per annum, the interest being paid at the end of each year over a term of 10 years, and the principal to be repaid at the end of the 10th year.

This means that Petergee agrees to pay as follows:

$1,000,000 x 0.1/100 = $1,000 per annum x 10 years = $10,000 interest over the 10 years.

Is palmas85 going to pay the same amount as Petergee?

In the same way, Petergee stated **clearly **that the possible number of traditional Catholics might possibly be 0.1% of 1.2 billion Catholics (that is) = 1,200,000.

The maths are 1,200,000,000 x 0.1/100 = 1,200,000

I repeat palmas85 (inadvertantly) misinterpreted 0.1 as being the SAME as 0.1% and claimed that Petergee ought have stated 10%

And there is nothing magical about the above at all - I am sure that even palmas85’s nephew would agree…

Wait a minute. Is that Australian, Canadian or American dollars?

And which exchange rate are we using?

 

[Sean_O_L]

Palmas85 wrote:

As far as me being anathema, well…
Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.

Above From the Catholic encyclopedia

True AND False!
It is true that the above is a correct quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia of the c. 1908 - 1912 era. However it is no longer true today! Time marches on … the disciplines in the catholic Church can and (some of them) HAVE been changed. “Anathema” is no longer a prescribed penalty contained in either the Code of Canon Law nor the "Catechism of the Council of Trent.

The “old” Encyclopedia is very good UP TO IT’s TIME - but it does not contain any amendments or additions from that time to today!

So I truly doubt that you are in a position to anathemitize me

And - although you do not give the right reason - nevertheless you are correct. I also point out to you that I NEVER claimed that right. Apparently, you missed the very important conditional word “IF”!

While you do write a lot you don’t really say much of any consequence. I’ve been to your web site.

You are entitled to your opinion - as am I also to mine, n’cest pas?

I observe and question, but I don’t hate. Why do you? Is that what took you away from the Church in the first place, hatred, or did you just think you were superior and knew better than the rest of us. You see Sean old man, I never followed a group like the SSPX, even when they were the only ones offering the Traditional Mass. . I stayed faithful to the Church and to the Holy Father, even in the 70’s and 80’s :bigyikes: when all manner of extreme experimentation went on virtually unchallenged.

Spoken like a true Pharasee! You have already received your reward, no? Well, there ARE such people (like me, my fellow former-schismatics, Pete Vere, JCL, Shawn McElhinney, Bill Grossklas, Bishop Rifan and his 26,000 odd priests and laity, etc. etc.) who have been seen to be sinners. We do NOT hate the SSPXers and associated schismatics: we DO attempt in whatever feeble or ineffective way we can to bring our fallen brothers and sisters back to Unity in the Church.

I’ve earned the right to question, because I’ve seen and experienced what happens when you don’t.

If the Lord were to start writing your sins in the sand - would YOU be so righteous? How do you know what I have seen or not seen?

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**General Reminder:

Posters are requested to stay with the topic and depersonalize remarks. Your cooperation in editing for tone and content prior to posting is appreciated.**

 

[palmas85]

Sean O L:

Palmas85 wrote:

True AND False!
It is true that the above is a correct quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia of the c. 1908 - 1912 era. However it is no longer true today! Time marches on … the disciplines in the catholic Church can and (some of them) HAVE been changed. “Anathema” is no longer a prescribed penalty contained in either the Code of Canon Law nor the "Catechism of the Council of Trent.

The “old” Encyclopedia is very good UP TO IT’s TIME - but it does not contain any amendments or additions from that time to today!

And - although you do not give the right reason - nevertheless you are correct. I also point out to you that I NEVER claimed that right. Apparently, you missed the very important conditional word “IF”!

You are entitled to your opinion - as am I also to mine, n’cest pas?

Spoken like a true Pharasee! You have already received your reward, no? Well, there ARE such people (like me, my fellow former-schismatics, Pete Vere, JCL, Shawn McElhinney, Bill Grossklas, Bishop Rifan and his 26,000 odd priests and laity, etc. etc.) who have been seen to be sinners. We do NOT hate the SSPXers and associated schismatics: we DO attempt in whatever feeble or ineffective way we can to bring our fallen brothers and sisters back to Unity in the Church.

If the Lord were to start writing your sins in the sand - would YOU be so righteous? How do you know what I have seen or not seen?

You brought up anathemas, not me. I have never said I was righteous, heck, my hermanito Gusnao said I was probably possessed by demons. I just said I observe and question because I’ve seen what happens when you don’t. And if anyone appears self righteous in these posts it is you old man. Sorry to tell you that. The term Pharissee does not bother me a bit, and to tell the truth, I really don’t care what you’ve seen or not seen. Your web site kinds says it all.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**The thread is now closed. Thanks to those who contributed. **